FISH CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS : FRIDAY, 19 AUGUST 1994

The Chair opened the informal Plenary by inviting the delegates to
resume their review of the Revised Negotiating Text (RNT).

SECTION VII -- NON-PARTICIPANTS IN SUBREGIONAL OR REGIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS: China suggested that paragraph
40 be amended to encourage non-member States to abide by the
conservation and management measures that are taken by the regional
arrangement since, under the Vienna Treaty, States are not bound if
they are not a party. Canada answered that the duty to cooperate in
conservation and management measures stemmed from existing
international customary laws and UNCLOS. Peru added that the
Chinese amendment would undermine the effectiveness of the draft as
it stands.

Norway, supported by Canada and Peru, proposed amendments that
would reinforce coastal State enforcement against both parties and
non-parties of an eventual convention. Non-parties should be
encouraged to adhere to the convention and adopt laws and
regulations consistent with its provisions. Parties should
cooperate in a manner consistent with the convention and
international law and exchange information on activities of vessels
flying the flag of non-parties that undermine conservation and
management measures. The EU, supported by Poland, warned against
extending coastal State enforcement jurisdiction. Canada reminded
the EU that mutual rights must be respected. Japan suggested that
the phrase "within the framework of the organization" be added for
clarification.

On paragraph 43, which deals with the activities that States can
undertake to discourage undermining actions of non-members, Panama,
supported by Canada and the EU, suggested that the words "in
accordance with international law" be added at the end. Indonesia
disagreed. The EU argued, and Mexico and Korea agreed, that the
actions to be taken should be collective. Consequently, the word
"individually" should be deleted. Peru, supported by Iceland,
disagreed with this suggestion since it would virtually prevent
coastal States from taking any action. Argentina agreed and
suggested that if "individually" was deleted, "collectively" should
also be taken out. Canada and Poland concurred.

With regard to paragraph 42 on the exchange of information, the
Russian Federation proposed that member States exchange information
on the activities of non-parties whose activities undermine the
measures that the organization has taken.

The representative of the Canadian Oceans Caucus reiterated the
need for an international conservation body to oversee and ensure
implementation of legally-binding standards and systems. She also
suggested that "fishers" and "fisherfolk" be substituted for
"fishermen".

SECTION VIII -- DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: The Chair reminded
delegates that the text is designed to expedite aspects of UNCLOS,
especially in view of fragile and seasonal fisheries.

The US proposed that the RNT recognize the ability of regional
organizations or arrangements to adopt procedures for the
compulsory binding dispute resolution, but it should not compel
them to set up such procedures. Many disputes in fisheries
management require speedy resolution. Japan preferred the UNCLOS
arbitration process. While Annex 3 is more "thrifty" than UNCLOS,
it is technically difficult in comparison.

Uruguay said that while the RNT is acceptable, paragraph 44,
requiring all States to cooperate to prevent disputes and settle
disputes by negotiation or peaceful means, should be brought into
line with UNCLOS. Paragraph 45 should include a binding and
compulsory procedure. He spoke in support of Japan's proposal that
the arbitration procedures in paragraph 43 be optional regarding
Annex 3 or UNCLOS. The EU supported the US, but said the RNT should
not move beyond the balance of UNCLOS.

Peru agreed with Uruguay, but disagreed with Japan over paragraph
50 requiring dispute settlement provisions to be consistent with
UNCLOS. Canada said the lack of a compulsory and binding dispute
settlement mechanism is a hindrance to solving disputes. The
Solomon Islands, supported by the Cook Islands, said some reference
should be made to Part XV of UNCLOS, which deals with settlement of
disputes, and strongly supported the retention of paragraph 50 in
the RNT. Poland accepted the dispute mechanism provisions and
endorsed the Japanese proposal. The Russian Federation said the
main objective of Section VIII is the quick settlement of disputes
by peaceful means.

SECTION IX -- SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING STATES:
Mexico spoke of the importance of this section for developing
countries. Balance is needed so the text does not focus solely on
the principle of obligation but meets the requirements of the
developing countries for sustainable utilization of their
resources. Indonesia supported Mexico and said that paragraph 54
should grant developing countries favorable access to high seas
fisheries. The new text should include provisions to enable
developing countries to acquire fleets and participate in high seas
fishing. Kiribati and other Pacific States said the RNT is now
balanced and recognizes the sovereign rights of coastal States to
exploit and conserve their marine resources, as these are sources
of protein, employment and foreign exchange earnings. India said
the precautionary approach developed in Section III.3.B.4 will
incur heavy burdens on the developing countries unless there is
adequate international assistance from the UN and its specialized
agencies.

The EU said it maintained a policy of cooperation in fisheries with
developing countries and major resources are devoted to it, but
developing countries must fulfill their requirements in
conservation and management.

China urged the international community to provide scientific and
technological support to developing countries to improve the
sustainable utilization of sea fisheries and aquaculture. Thailand
spoke for an agreed repository to collect data and information,
accessible by developing countries.

Sweden suggested an amendment to paragraph 51, calling for new and
additional resources to be provided through the GEF and CSD.

The International Collective in Support of Fishworkers called for
international monitoring of foreign fleets entering coastal States
waters, causing resource and access difficulties for artisanal and
traditional fishers.

SECTION X -- REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT MEASURES: The Chair invited comments on paragraphs
57 (reporting) and 58 (review conference). The EU, supported by
Korea and Sweden, said that the FAO is the organization best
prepared to deal with the reports. The US, supported by New
Zealand, said that he would be happy to see annual reporting. He
also stated that a full review of the implementation of these
important principles should occur three years from the date of
adoption of this text. Peru said that under paragraph 57, reports
should be sent to both FAO and the General Assembly, since FAO is
only a technical body and cannot take further action if compliance
is lacking. New Zealand said a legally-binding instrument would not
obviate the need for a review conference. The Solomon Islands and
Australia supported the RNT as it stands. The Russian Federation
said that FAO should not have to do all of the work. Canada,
supported by Uruguay, Morocco, and Poland, expressed a reservation
with the first sentence of paragraph 57. Sweden favored retention
of reporting to the CSD.

ANNEX 1 -- MINIMUM STANDARD FOR DATA REQUIREMENTS: Japan
said it could agree to the purpose of this text but, supported by
the EU, asked that regional organizations specify the particular
data to collect, since each region has different characteristics.
Japan said that for practical purposes, all the information that
would apply world-wide need not be specified here. The data should
be set in terms of standards and examples but not of minima. Brazil
said that these amendments were too radical and should have been
tabled much sooner. Australia, supported by New Zealand, Fiji and
the Federated States of Micronesia, said she understood Japan's
concerns but thought that the RNT was already flexible enough. Peru
concurred, as did Papua New Guinea, who supported even stronger
requirements.

Japan argued, and Poland, Korea and the EU agreed, that data should
be collected both from the high seas and the exclusive zones. He
added that it should also be clear from the beginning of Annex 1
that the collection of data will occur within the framework of the
regional organizations.

Japan said that the data need not necessarily be reported on a
vessel-by-vessel basis but may be aggregated for reasons of
confidentiality. India and Mexico agreed. He also suggested that
paragraph 7, on the information that is available through other
means, be deleted. Indonesia argued that it should be retained and
reinforced so that it does not appear to be so permissive.

With regard to the graphic flow of data contained in paragraph 12,
the flow from flag State to coastal State should be through the
regional organization that will then, on request, forward the
information to the coastal States that are party to the
arrangement. Norway said that the flow should be through the
coastal States national fisheries administrations, as the increase
in joint ventures makes collection difficult. The Chair said that
the chart merely depicts the flow of data and is based on legal
fishing. The flow of data to the coastal States in the absence of
a regional organization still needs to be addressed.

India said that the requirements should be commensurate with the
limited financial resources of developing States.

ANNEX 2 -- GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE
POINTS: The Chair said that this is an important part of the
agreement but that the topic can lend itself to further
consultation. The text emanated from the report of the Working
Group and needs further clarification. Peru hoped that the next
text submitted would be a draft convention, but the EU disagreed.
India, Indonesia, and the Chair himself admitted that they did not
understand fully some of the provisions of Annex 2.

JOINT NGO STATEMENT: The Environmental Defense Fund, on
behalf of 16 NGOS, called for a legally-binding agreement with
sufficient substance to provide for effective and equitable
conservation and management of the stocks on both the high seas and
within EEZs.

GREENPEACE: Greenpeace asked that additional sections be
drafted on the issues of excess capacity, marine environmental
protection, the rights of small-scale fishworkers and transparency.